 |
| Pld 2026 sc 308 |
بیوی کئی سال کا سابقہ نان و نفقہ وصول کرسکتی ہے، سپریم کورٹ کا اہم فیصلہ
مقدمے کی مختصر کہانی
بیوی نے شوہر کے خلاف دعویٰ دائر کیا کہ شوہر نے کئی سال سے اس کا نان و نفقہ ادا نہیں کیا۔ فیملی کورٹ نے جون 2004 سے نان و نفقہ ادا کرنے کا حکم دیا۔ اپیلی عدالت نے اس مدت کو محدود کردیا، تاہم اسلام آباد ہائی کورٹ نے فیملی کورٹ کا فیصلہ بحال کردیا۔
شوہر نے سپریم کورٹ میں اپیل کی، لیکن سپریم کورٹ نے بھی اپیل خارج کردی۔
نان و نفقہ کی کتنی مدت کا حکم دیا گیا؟
فیملی کورٹ نے جون 2004 سے نان و نفقہ ادا کرنے کا حکم دیا تھا۔ سپریم کورٹ نے اس حکم کو برقرار رکھا۔ یعنی بیوی کو صرف دعویٰ دائر کرنے کے بعد کا خرچہ نہیں بلکہ جون 2004 سے واجب الادا نان و نفقہ بھی دیا گیا۔
ہر ماہ نئی وجہِ دعویٰ
سپریم کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ شوہر کی طرف سے نان و نفقہ ادا نہ کرنا Continuing Wrong ہے۔ اس لیے ہر ماہ عدم ادائیگی سے نئی وجہِ دعویٰ پیدا ہوتی ہے۔
چھ سال کی مدت کا اصول
عدالت نے Article 120 Limitation Act کا حوالہ دیتے ہوئے واضح کیا کہ سابقہ نان و نفقہ کے دعوے میں قانونِ میعاد کو مدنظر رکھا جائے گا، تاہم مسلسل عدم ادائیگی کی صورت میں Section 23 Limitation Act کے تحت وجہِ دعویٰ بار بار پیدا ہوسکتی ہے۔
شوہر پر سابقہ نان و نفقہ بھی واجب ہے
عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ جو نان و نفقہ شوہر نے ادا نہیں کیا وہ اس کے ذمہ واجب الادا رقم ہے۔ صرف اس وجہ سے کہ بیوی نے عدالت سے رجوع کرنے میں تاخیر کی، شوہر اپنی ذمہ داری سے بری نہیں ہوسکتا۔
سپریم کورٹ کا فیصلہ
سپریم کورٹ نے Muhammad Aslam Chattha v. Shehnaz Akhtar Zahoor Ahmed and another, PLD 2026 Supreme Court 308 میں شوہر کی اپیل خارج کردی اور ہائی کورٹ کا فیصلہ برقرار رکھا۔
اہم قانونی اصول
بیوی ثابت شدہ سابقہ مدت کا نان و نفقہ وصول کرسکتی ہے، اور نان و نفقہ کی مسلسل عدم ادائیگی ہر ماہ نئی وجہِ دعویٰ پیدا کرسکتی ہے۔
Must read judgement.
PLD 2026 Supreme Court 308
Present: Shahid Waheed, Musarrat Hilali and Naeem Akhter Afghan, JJ
MUHAMMAD ASLAM CHATTHA-Appellant
Versus
SHEHNAZ AKHTAR ZAHOOR AHMED and another ---Respondents
C.A. No. 1413 of 2021, decided on 18th November, 2025.
(On appeal against the order dated 29.09.2020 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Writ Petition No. 431 of 2019).
(a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)---
-S.5, Sched.--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 23 & First Sched., Art.120---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Suit for recovery of past/retrospective maintenance---Entitlement---Unpaid past maintenance constituting continuing wrong thereby providing fresh cause of action for wife to bring the claim---Scope---Brief facts were that the respondent/wife married the appellant/husband and filed a suit for recovery of maintenance, claiming that the appellant had not provided financial support for several years-Family court decreed maintenance from June 2004 onward and the appellate court restricted it to the period from filing of the suit, whereas, the High Court restored the family court's decree--Pivotal issue requiring determination before the Supreme Court was the "extent of the period for which a neglected wife could claim maintenance, concentrating on the maximum retrospective period that the Court could consider when deciding such claims"---Held: Evidence in the present case indicated that the appellant's refusal to pay maintenance occurred within six years p rears prior to the filing of the suit, a fact that was duly recounted in the plaint-As a result, the respondent's suit was filed within the permissible timeframe established by law-Moreover, due to unpaid past maintenance the cause of action effectively persisted month by month thereby constituting "continuing wrong" providing fresh cause of action with each passing month-It was argued that the appellant was willing to pay for past maintenance obligations but insisted that he would not cover any amounts due for the period beyond six years--This argument revealed the appellant's desire to abandon the respondent, potentially leaving her with deep emotional scars---By attempting to leverage legal technicalities to evade his obligations, he revealed a troubling disregard for his responsibilities-The arrears of maintenance arrears of maintenance were, in essence, a debt owed by the husband (the appellant) to his wife (the respondent)---The law clearly provided that he must fulfil his duty to support her, thus he remained liable for the maintenance owed. for the past periods-Just because a substantial amount of time had passed, specifically, six years, did not absolve him of the financial responsibilities he owed to his wife-As the respondent's suit was timely, she was entitled to collect past maintenance for the period delineated her plaint and substantiated by evidence-In cases concerning maintenance allowances, wife's cause of action would arise the moment her husband began to neglect his duty to support her---Therefore, any argument asserting that wife's delays in approaching the court would exen 1 exempt the husband from liability for past maintenance would lack both reason and logic--The time elapsed prior to the wife's court action would still be taken into account when determining the duration for which maintenance was owed---Under Islamic law, a wife would be only required to demonstrate that her husband had neglected her for a specific period and had not provided the maintenance to which she was entitled, without any fault on her part--If it would be ascertained that the husband had failed in his duty to support her, he would become liable not only for future maintenance but also for any past due amounts, reflecting the period during which she was deprived of financial support-The law served as a protective shield for the vulnerable, ensuring that the husband (the appellant) was held accountable for his ev his every cunning stratagem---Even he attempted to obscure his responsibilities behind a facade of legal jargon, the consequences for his obstinate actions would inevitably come to light---Therefore, the judgment delivered by the High Court was upheld by the Supreme Court in all its aspects-Appeal of the husband was dismissed, in circumstances.
(b) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)---
S.5, Sched-Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched., Art. 120---Wife claiming past maintenance---Entitlement---Limitation for the claim of past maintenance, computation of-A husband's obligation to provide maintenance to his wife begins with the solemnization of their marriage, contingent upon certain conditions---Hesitation or delay of a neglected wife in promptly approaching the court, or her attempts to seek alternative remedies outside the courtroom, should not unjustly strip her of her right to maintenance from the moment her cause of action arose--The judicial system possesses the authority to grant maintenance, and it is also emphasized that such decisions must take into account the considerations of limitation and the specific circumstances surrounding each individual case---Article 120 of the Limitation Act of 1908 applies to cases seeking the recovery of past maintenance allowances-The relevance of Article 120 in such contexts has been confirmed by the Supreme Court, solidifying the framework for addressing claims for past maintenance in family law---Article 120 stipulates a statutory period of six years for filing a suit in instances where no specific time limit is designated elsewhere in the Schedule of the Act-The timeframe is computed from the moment the right to sue accrues-According to Article 120, "the right to sue" is triggered when the defendant makes a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe upon the rights asserted by the plaintiff in the suit.
and others PLD 2006 SC 457 rel.
Muhammad Nawaz v. Mst. Khurshid Begum and 3 others PLD 1972 SC 302 and Mst. Farah Naz v. Judge Family Court, Sahiwal
Sardar Muhammad v. Mst. Nasima Bibi and others PLD 1966 (W.P) Lah. 703 ref.
(c) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)---
-S.5, Sched.--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.23-Claim for recovery of past maintenance---Limitation, computation of---Delayed/unpaid past maintenance constituting a continuing wrong-Cause of action would be recurring or continuing where past maintenance remains unpaid/delayed---Scope---In the scenario of maintenance, the cause of action effectively persists month by month, thereby constituting a "continuing wrong" in accordance with Section 23 of the Limitation Act of 1908---This means that a cause of action arises anew with each passing month, de die in diem.
Mst. Ramzanu Bibi v. Ibrahim (deceased) through L.Rs and others 2025 SCMR 955 rel.
Venkopadhyaya v. Kavari Hengusu 2 Madras 36; Holes v. Chard Union (1894) 1 Ch. 293 and Basawanewa Balappa v. Balappa
Shivappa AIR 1936 Bombay 289 ref.
(d) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)---
----5.5, Sched.--Past maintenance claim by wife--Scope-Husband's obligation to provide maintenance for wife---Islamic marriage encompasses both spiritual and practical dimensions, with significant legal obligations and consequences-One of the primary responsibilities that arises from this contract is the husband's duty to provide maintenance for his wife, which must be commensurate with his financial means for the duration of the marriage---Once this legal obligation is established, it becomes enforceable through the judicial system, supported by the community's recognized legal norms---Importantly, any argument suggesting that past maintenance cannot be claimed, while only current maintenance is allowable, effectively imposes a condition on the contract that is not legally supported-It is crucial to understand that the enforceability of the contract, along with all its associated obligations, is immediate upon any breach of the contract-In cases concerning maintena maintenance allowances, a wife's cause of action arises the moment. her husband begins to neglect his duty to support her---Therefore, an argument asserting that delays in approaching the court would exempt the husband from liability for past maintenance lacks both reason and logic-The time elapsed prior to the wife's court action will still be taken into account when determining the duration for which maintenance is owed-In this context, arrears in maintenance are considered an outstanding debt owed by the husband, who remains liable to fulfil this obligation regardless of any formal agreements or decrees in favour of the wife---Under Islamic law, a wife is only required to demonstrate that her husband has neglected her for a specific period and has not provided the maintenance to which she is entitled, without any fault on her fault on her part-If it is ascertained that the husband has failed in his duty to support her, he becomes liable not only for future maintenance but also for any past due amounts, reflecting the period during which she was deprived of financial support-It is also important to note that Quranic verses indicate that a husband is responsible for providing maintenance to his wife, including a divorced wife during her waiting period, based on his means and ability.
(e) Interpretation of statutes-
Statute of limitation---Application, nature of Scope The statute of limitations should be applied unhesitatingly when its applicability is clear-However, in situations where two interpretations are possible, one that risks depriving an individual of their rightful claims, and another that affirms their right to recovery, it is prudent to favour the interpretation that seeks to uphold justice and prevent unjust hardships-Moreover, the statute of limitations merely prescribes a timeframe within which a party must approach the courts to file a suit; it does not per se affect, govern, or regulate the validity or existence of the claim presented in the suit.
(f) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)---
-S.23-Recurring or successive causes of action---Scope--The concept of continuing or successive causes of action is well established. in the legal framework of the Limitation Act, 1908---When a party faces recurring or successive causes of action, whether originating from the terms of a contract or by operation of law, each instance presents a fresh opportunity that resets the limitation period---aanravious cau action does not inhihit its ability to canita
Shivappa AIR 1936 Bombay 289 ref.
(d) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)---
the marriage--S.5, Sched.--Past maintenance claim by wife--Scope---Husband's obligation to provide maintenance for wife-Islamic marriage encompasses both spiritual and practical dimensions, with significant legal obligations and consequences-One of the primary responsibilities that arises from this contract is the husband's duty to provide maintenance for his wife, which must be commensurate with his financial means for the duration of the marriage---Once this legal obligation is established, it becomes enforceable through the judicial system, supported by th the community's recognized legal norms---Importantly, any argument suggesting that past maintenance cannot be claimed, while only current maintenance is allowable, effectively imposes a condition on the contract that is not legally supported-It is crucial to understand that the enforceability of the contract, along with all its associated obligations, is immediate upon any breach of the contract-In cases concerning maintenance allowances, a wife's cause of action arises the moment her husband begins to neglect his duty to support her---Therefore, an argument asserting that delays in approaching the court would exempt the husband from liability for past maintenance nce lacks both reason and logic--The time elapsed prio will still be taken into account when determining the duration duration for for which maintenance owed-In this ed prior to the wife's court action this context, arrears in maintenance considered an outstanding debt owed by the husband, who remains liable to fulfil this obligation regardless of any formal agreements or decrees in favour of the wife-Under Islamic law, a wife is only required to demonstrate that her husband has neglected her for a specific period and has not provided the maintenance to which she is entitled, without any fault on her part-If it is ascertained that the husband has failed in his duty to support her, he becomes liable not only for future maintenance but also for any past due amounts, reflecting the period during which she was deprived of financial nancial support-It is also important to note that Quranic verses indicate that a husband is responsible for providing maintenance to his wife, including a divorced wife during her waiting period, based on his means and ability.
(e) Interpretation of statutes
Statute of limitation---Application, nature of-Scope-The statute of limitations should be applied unhesitatingly when its applicability is clear-However, in situations where two interpretations are possible, one that risks depriving an individual of their rightful claims, and another that affirms their right to recovery, it is prudent to favour the interpretation that seeks to uphold justice and prevent unjust hardships-Moreover, the statute of limitations merely prescribes a timeframe within which a party must approach the courts to file a suit; it does not per se affect, govern, or regulate the validity or existence of the claim presented in the suit.
(f) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)---
-S.23--Recurring or successive causes of action---Scope-The concept of continuing or successive causes of action is well established in the legal framework of the Limitation Act, 1908-When a party faces recurring or successive causes of action, whether originating from the terms of a contract or by operation of law, each instance presents a fresh opportunity that resets the limitation period---Notably, a party's failure to utilize a previous cause of action does not inhibit its ability to capitalize on a subsequent one.
Zulfikar Khalid Maluka, Advocate Supreme Court along with Appellant in person for Appellant.
Hafiz Arfat Ahmad Ch. Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1.